If you don't want to read all this text, the Angry Video Game Nerd provides a very concise explanation of the timeline, but openly leaving big holes for debate. Follow the link at the bottom of this post.
The timeline for the Legend of Zelda is perhaps one of the longest running gaming debates ever, including controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto. If you don't believe me, you've been living under a rock and there are plenty of sources that would agree with me.
I've been wanting to host this thread for a long time, but because of the complexity of the subjects and also some time restrictions, that's what's been holding me back. If you're not very familiar with Zelda, lesson one to this is that you can't say any of the story games simply "don't count." That idea is quickly scraped because it's just grounds not to think. Lesson two, there isn't a huge amount of importance over this debate, it's definitely nothing to lose sleep over, but thinking about it encourages creativity, which I commend everyone for. Putting your ideas together in a linear train of thought can be very fun, and can definitely shed some light to a way that these games can be chronologically connected. The fourth lesson is to remember, Zelda games are individual adventures. You don't need to play them one after the other to get the entire story behind it. That's fortunate for people who haven't had the opportunity to play them all, which is the case for most people.
Every Zelda game has the basic goal behind it; Zelda is in trouble, and Link needs to rescue her. How you re-create the same story over fifteen times is a marvel, especially since it's one of the best video game series of all time. However, one main subject in this debate is that the Link and Zelda featured in each game is not necessarily the same pair from any other game in the series. For example, in Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link, the Zelda in the game has been asleep for millenniums, even though Link rescued her in the original Zelda, and Zelda 2 is a direct sequel, taking place a few seasons after the original Zelda.
Little did we know, in the late 1980s, is that Zelda would soon go backwards, twist, split, and do anything but go straight forward. Let's step though the things we know for sure. First the original The Legend of Zelda would be released in North America in 1987. One year later, Zelda II: The Adventure of Link would be released and take place a few seasons later. This is the only definite sequel. Nothing can be said for sure about any of the other games, with the exception of Four Swords and Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons. We'll get to those later. Next, Nintendo released a prequel, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. This game was a prequel to the original Zelda. Link retrieves his sword from his uncle, who died trying to rescue Zelda. Next, we get The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening on the Game Boy. This was the first portable Zelda game, and is a sequel to the prequel. Wow. It seems to fill in the time between the two games, A Link to the Past and the original Zelda. To me, it makes sense. You could tie A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, and the original Zelda in near perfect chronological order, with few exceptions. It makes mention of Zelda, but Link never rescues her in the game. In fact, he isn't in Hyrule, he's in a distant land, where he battles various creatures and finally escapes this land.
Since there is so much to say about the entire series, we should segment the series off for debate, and link them as we go along. Let's start with these four games first, and see if there is much to say about them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHIP9UtkQDQ
Most Zelda games are probably unrelated, except the later ones.